(Issue 192 is tracked at http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-192)
On Wednesday) 01 September 2010 21:19:56 Anton Prowse wrote:
> From the f2f minutes[1]:
> > <glazou>
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Oct/0027.html
> >
> > dbaron: Anton's proposal for issue 1 looks fine.
> > dbaron: I don't think we want to make the second change.
> > dsinger: I think the "further" lacks a referent.
> > <fantasai> dbaron proposes s/further content/content after the
> > float/ <fantasai> and s/it/that content/
> > TabAtkins: And the third issue is invalid - Bert gave an example
> > where
> >
> > the content may have to be reflowed onto multiple
> > lines.
> >
> > RESOLVED: Accept change for first issue, accept dbarons' change
> > for
> >
> > the second issue, third issue is invalid.
>
> I don't believe the third issue to be invalid, and I went into rather
> a lot of detail in a later post[2] in the cited thread, in addition
> to responding[3,4] to the purported counter-example that Bert
> raised[5]. If Bert has a counter-example that he has not posted to
> the list, please could he do so.
The spec says:
Any content in the current line before a floated box is reflowed
in the first available line on the other side of the float.
That is indeed only true if the box floats to the left (or to the right
in rtl text), otherwise the content stays visually "on this side" of the
float. The next sentence in the spec ("In other words...") says it more
clearly. This is text from 1998 and it is also in a section that says it
is merely an introduction, not the exact rules. We wouldn't write like
that anymore, but given that the exact rules are there as well, I don't
think it hurts.
I said previously that "first available" referred to the fact that the
text before the float might have to be broken over multiple lines. That
was a mistake, as you pointed out. The first available line ("line box"
might be better) is always just one line.
[...]
> I also disagree with dbaron's change for issue 2, since the sentence
> in the spec is talking about moving line boxes (ie creating a gap
> between line boxes) not about flowing content (which is adequately
> handled by the preceding sentence in the spec), as David himself
> noted in [6].
I think that is the question here: do we move line boxes or content?
What we want is that the *content* moves, viz., to the next line box
that is wide enough to hold it (or the first line box that isn't
shortened, whichever comes first). The shortened line boxes remain where
they are. They just happen to stay empty.
David's rewrite removes the treacherous word "it" from the old text and
makes the referent explicit:
If a shortened line box is too small to contain any content after
the float, then *that content* [my emphasis. BB] is shifted downward
until either it fits or there are no more floats present.
There are no doubt still better ways to express it, but this does the
trick.
> In any case, the suggested phrase "content after the
> float" is ambiguous: it wants to refer to content after the float's
> placeholder, but can easily be misinterpreted as content prior to
> the placeholder which has moved to the other side of the float.
True, but if you actually try to work from that interpretation, you'll
soon run into contradictions: A shortened line box next to a right-
floating image can never contain anything "after" in the sense of "to
the right of" that image. So "after" has to refer to the logical, not
the visual order.
>
> Also, as I've pointed out before, 9.4.2 (Inline Formatting Context)
> incorrectly says "Line boxes are stacked with no vertical separation"
> so that needs editing too.
No, that remains true, even in the presence of floats. It may look as if
there is space between the lines, but actually the space is made up of
empty line boxes. (The space is always an integral number times the
'line-height'.)
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0001.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0181.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Oct/0055.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Oct/0057.html
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Oct/0050.html
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0074.html
Bert
--
Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM
bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
+33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France